beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 1, 2016 to September 29, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around September 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the Switzerland (mains) 56,099kg (hereinafter “instant goods”) at KRW 78,538,60 (excluding value-added tax).
B. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the supply value of KRW 86,392,460, including value-added tax, to the person who is supplied with the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff received respectively payment of KRW 20,00,000 on November 24, 2016, and KRW 26,392,460 on December 5, 2016, among the instant goods.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances, the parties who entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of the instant goods shall be deemed the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff as the supplier, and the Defendant as the recipient of the goods, and the Defendant paid a part of the price of the goods: (a) the party who entered into the contract for the supply of the instant goods with the Plaintiff is deemed to be the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40,00,000 (=86,392,460 won - 20,000,000 won - 26,392,460 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 1, 2016, which is the day following the date the payment period for the goods was due to the payment of the goods to the Plaintiff, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation to perform, until September 29, 2017, which is the date the decision was rendered, and from the following day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.
B. The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion was made through A through the new Jinsung Corporation (the trade name before the alteration: Samsung M&S corporation; hereinafter "the non-party company"), and the defendant purchased the stetra from Samsung M&S corporation. The contract for the supply of the goods of this case was made through A, and the goods of this case were supplied from A.